<G28>

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rocknthehawk

So if a red robot was parked in blue alliances alley, they would first incur a foul when touched by a blue robot, but then blue could be issued a technical foul and/or red card if continuing to hit the parked red robot? Where is the line between getting a robot out of your way, and exploiting [g44]?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

It really comes down to intent - If you hit them while playing the game as it's intended to be played (in you example, if you were trying to get to your inbounder to fetch a ball, or get from your inbounder to your ramp to go score a ball), they'll be penalized. If, however, you go bolting across the arena just to hit them with no intent to actually play the game (your only intention was for a penalty), it won't earn you any points. A lot of it is discretion on the ref's part, but trust me, it's usually pretty obvious.

[Chickenonastick]

Originally Posted by MrBasse

Keep an eye out for <G45> though...

[G44] Generally, a rule violation by an Alliance that was directly caused by actions of the opposing Alliance will not be penalized. Rule [G28] is an exception to this rule.
[G45] Strategies exploiting Rule [G44] are not in the spirit of the FRC and are not allowed. Violation: Technical-Foul and Red Card

So if they are looking at ways to gain points by making contact and forcing fouls, the season is going to be a depressing one for them.

But since G44 explicitly states that it does not apply to Rule G28, does that mean that Rule G45 has no authority over G28?

Therefore, if an opposing robot somehow has a malfunction in one of the zones indicated by G28, could you not "come in contact" with them multiple times, resulting in 3 points per contact?

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Chickenonastick

But since G44 explicitly states that it does not apply to Rule G28, does that mean that Rule G45 has no authority over G28?

Therefore, if an opposing robot somehow has a malfunction in one of the zones indicated by G28, could you not "come in contact" with them multiple times, resulting in 3 points per contact?

Rule G45 says that if you exploit G44, it's a T-foul and Red Card. Rule G28 states that a robot may not touch its opponent in contact with the key, alley, or bridge--no matter who initiates (and says that it supersedes G44 on that).

The question to ask Q&A is this: "Because G28 opens the door for a team to repeatedly contact an opponent who happens to get stuck/pushed into/otherwise jammed in or next to a Key, Alley, or Bridge, racking up points just by contacting the team, would G45 be brought into play against a team who tried to use this to their advantage? In short, does G45 apply against G28 as well as G44?"

[Kevin Sevcik]

I'm confused by the confusion. <G44> contains both the rule that a team can't force a foul AND the exception to that rule. <G45> says you can't exploit <G44> as a strategy. It seems straightforward to me then that you can't exploit <G44>, which includes the exception for <G28>. So you can't repeatedly bump an opponent in your alley for the express purpose of racking up fouls.

[EricH]

The G28 blue box says "regardless of" G44 is when/how G28 applies, and no matter who initiates the contact.

In other words, if I'm in contact with the alley (or key), you're my opponent passing by, and I hit you, I get 3 points, per hit. That is G28's take on it. G44 would normally prevent this; however, G28 is specifically excluded from G44 consideration.

G45 says that strategies exploiting G44 are illegal. So if I'm exploiting G28, which is its own rule, by using the fact that G44 does not apply to G28, then am I exploiting G44 or G28?

If I'm exploiting G28, I can score points by maintaining contact with a protected zone and hitting any opponent passing by, and I get 3 points per hit. If I'm exploiting G44, then after about the second or third hit, my opponents get 9 points and I get a red card. Big difference there, don't you think?

[hexane360]

I think one of the best ways to exploit <G44> is making others lodge balls in your vunerable robot
Then you'd have 4 balls in your shooter and not get penalized

[MrBasse]

I really feel like this shouldn't even be up for discussion at all though...

Right at the beginning of the manual there is a statement about how you shouldn't try to lawyer the manual to find loop holes. This seems like a loop hole that is only going to make the game less fun for inexperienced teams and way more confusing to watch for spectators. How often can the crowd understand how and why a ref makes a call?

But mostly, this isn't in the spirit of how the game is meant to be played. In my eyes this kind of game play is the same as a pitcher beaning a big hitter rather than just walking him.

I say score points by legit means of scoring points. Don't create a foul rich situation that will destroy someone else's experience.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Let me try again. I read it that the exception for <G28> is part and parcel of <G44>. Without the explicit exception for <G28>, your strategy gets you no points whatsoever, because you're initiating contact. Ergo, you're exploiting <G44>'s exception for <G28> to make points by tagging people.

Also, as a practical matter, you KNOW good and well that the GDC doesn't want this to turn into a game of tag and keep away. They'd call it FIRST Tag You're It otherwise. They've given us simpler rules this year. I'd assume in the hope that we'd simplify everyone's lives by not hunting around in the rules for exploits like an explicit strategy of sitting in your alley/key waiting to tag an opponent and score 3 points. That couldn't be more clearly against the spirit of the game. The fact that the rule isn't worded exactly to your liking doesn't change that. It just means you obviously want to return to a massive tome of glossaries, definitions, exceptions to definitions, and exceptions to exceptions that we had before. So, for the sake of my sanity and back, please don't break my nice new lightweight rulebook.

[Karibou]

Originally Posted by hexane360

I think one of the best ways to exploit <G44> is making others lodge balls in your vunerable robot
Then you'd have 4 balls in your shooter and not get penalized

But if you're making the other alliance lodge balls in your robot, aren't you causing them to cause a foul as well, since they're causing a foul on your robot?

In any case, I don't think that's in the spirit of FRC and it shouldn't be a viable strategy...

[PAR_WIG1350]

I was disappointed to see that protected zone violations were, once again, an exception to the rule that says REDROBOT may not force BLUEROBOT to incur penalties. REDROBOT should never be able to force BLUEROBOT to incur penalties, not even once per season*. The rationale behind this rule is most likely to remove the issue of ambiguity for cases in which it is difficult to determine who initiated contact, but I feel it would have been far better to have said:

"if it is difficult to determine who initiated contact, no penalty will be issued and the team who would have otherwise received a penalty will receive a warning from the referee."

That is my .00002 Kilodollars.

*once per season is just an example, In other words even if it isn't "exploiting" <G44> (i.e. it is just an [apparently?] incidental occurrence), you actions should never result in the other alliance receiving fouls.

[GaryVoshol]

The only exploitation that is possible is taking advantage of the [G44] exemption of [G28]. What am I exploiting if I cause you to foul me, but it is not counted because of [G44]? That foul isn't called; I don't get any advantage in score. I am exploiting something if I cause you to foul me per [G28], because that foul will be called and my score will be increased.

[RegaCaska]

One thing i would like to point out... Since the contact would be on purpose, it would result in a technical foul thus 9 points.

Also, the way I see it, it all comes down to whether an exception to a rule is a part of said rule. And in my opinion, in this case, it is. since [G28]'s exception is categorized within [G44], exploiting [G28] would be exploiting [G44].([G28] being an exception to [G44] is within [G44] itself, thus [G28] is linked with [G44] and thus being linked to [G45] ... thus a technical foul and red-card would be given for exploiting [G44]. Just because your exploiting a specific part of [G44] does not mean you aren't exploiting the whole rule.)

So only in the case of exploiting [G28] and/or [G44] can you be issued a red card. In all other cases [G44] negates the penalty, such exploiting any rule other than [G44] and [G28], no [G45] penalty get issued. [G45] gets issued if [G28] gets exploited, or the fact that point negation gets exploited(I.E. stealing more than three balls from an offensive robot.(Of course this requires the offensive robot falling into some pre-existing trap of them giving you their balls.))

But of course it does all come down to the GDC's decision. My team and I were debating about this After Kick-off.

[ratdude747]

you know it is week 1 when the manual is filled with circular rules and endless loops...

the other issue is "not being in the spirit of FIRST"isn't a foul... sure, you won't be getting certain awards but...

the GDC really needs to clear this up...

[MaxMax161]

I think to really talk about how the rules apply you need a specific situation. These are the situations that I think would be most important to talk about, even if it may seem obvious to many of us.

In all of these examples REDBOT is the offensive bot and BLUEBOT is the defensive bot.

1. REDBOT has a low shooter and needs X' in front of it to be open in order to score. BLUEBOT is in front of the key blocking REDBOT's shot. REDBOT chases BLUEBOT out of the key in order to free up it's shot.
A. Is REDBOT's use the threat of a penalty to chase BLUEBOT away exploiting the rule? - I don't think so.

2. In the same situation after being chased away BLUEBOT runs back to it's side of the field. While backing up to take it's shot REDBOT hits BLUEBOT again.
A. Is there another penalty of BLUEBOT? - I think so, REDBOT was just trying to score and BLUEBOT was in the way.
B. If REDBOT didn't need to back up to take a shot could this still be counted against REDBOT? - I think this needs to be cleared up, I think it would be up to the ref to decide if REDBOT was trying to exploit the rule.

3. BLUEBOT is hovering around it's key to defend balls inside so that BLUE scorer bots can pick them up later.
A. Is BLUEBOT exploiting the rule to defend their balls with threat of a penalty? - I don't believe that this is exploiting the rule as BLUEBOT is just trying to help their team play the game.

What do you guys think about these situations? Are there any other situations that are important to talk about? Any questions I missed?

I'm honestly letting go of it for now. If it isn't fixed within the first 2, maybe 3 updates, then I'll start looking into it more.